Re: [pfSense Support] Brute Force

2008-09-03 Thread Jeppe Øland
What I did was simply set the firewall rule advanced settings. Here I set 2 Maximum new connections / 60 seconds. Looking at the rule, I'm not sure if it checks for multiple connections from the same host, or just for multiple connections in general. Technically I guess this means that a

Re: [pfSense Support] openvpn and road warrior issues

2008-09-03 Thread Paul Mansfield
just for testing, maybe change the server to have an explicit ifconfig line this: ifconfig 192.168.X.1 192.168.X.2 and put the opposite in the client ifconfig 192.168.X.2 192.168.X.1 perhaps drop the ping statements and simply use, at both ends keepalive 10 60 you can also

Re: [pfSense Support] openvpn and road warrior issues

2008-09-03 Thread BSD Wiz
i made all the changes you suggested and restarted the server and client but still to no avail. here is my current config files; Server: daemon keepalive 10 60 ping-timer-rem persist-tun persist-key dev tun proto tcp-server cipher BF-CBC up /etc/rc.filter_configure down

[pfSense Support] Need help with PXE installation on Soekris net5501

2008-09-03 Thread George Bourozikas
Hi, I have been using pfsense running off of a CF and also hard disks for some time now but this is the first time that I attempted to install it on a Soekris net5501-70 with a SATA hard disk. The Soekris POSTs fine (below) and I am able to load pxeboot from a a tftp server using boot f0. I

[pfSense Support] Traffic shaping WAN-DMZ ?

2008-09-03 Thread JJB
Hello, We have servers on our SHARED_DMZ interface and we would like to give priority to http requests to those servers from our web server over all other traffic. The bandwidth usage is tiny, a few kbits every few minutes. These series of http requests execute within 15 -20 seconds during

Re: [pfSense Support] Traffic shaping WAN-DMZ ?

2008-09-03 Thread Chris Buechler
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:18 PM, JJB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, We have servers on our SHARED_DMZ interface and we would like to give priority to http requests to those servers from our web server over all other traffic. The bandwidth usage is tiny, a few kbits every few minutes. These

[pfSense Support] rule not working correctly

2008-09-03 Thread BSD Wiz
please allow me to pose this question again. i am trying to allow all traffic from a specific source ip into my DMZ(10.0.0.0/24) for my VoIP phone. the problem is that it's not always passing the traffic and some times it's getting blocked. i have created a rule on my WAN interface as

Re: [pfSense Support] rule not working correctly

2008-09-03 Thread BSD Wiz
yes, it's causing problems. my phone won't ring when it get's blocked. that's exactly how i figured out it was getting blocked, people where telling me they were calling me but my phone never rang. i then went back and looked in the log files and noticed that the call was getting blocked.

RE: [pfSense Support] rule not working correctly

2008-09-03 Thread Christopher B. Uthe
What kind of VOIP are you working with, can specific ports be used/configured? Better Idea to forward specific ports vs all traffic if you can do it. Chris -Original Message- From: BSD Wiz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 7:36 PM To: support@pfsense.com

Re: [pfSense Support] rule not working correctly

2008-09-03 Thread BSD Wiz
lingo... yeah, i wish i could only forward the specific ports needed but lingo support is terrible and they don't know jack... i tried to figure out what ports are being used but the range is HUGE! so i'm pretty much stuck putting it into my dmz and allowing all traffic from a single IP.

RE: [pfSense Support] rule not working correctly

2008-09-03 Thread Christopher B. Uthe
Not to sound like a jerk, but have you checked it out very much? A quick search of lingo port forward hit this: http://portforward.com/english/routers/port_forwarding/Lingo/Primus-iAN- 02ex/Echolink.htm perhaps that's not your model number or something, but you might find that useful.. If you have

Re: [pfSense Support] rule not working correctly

2008-09-03 Thread BSD Wiz
that article must be ancient. those are not even close to the ports needed to accept incoming calls/voice. perfect example, my previous email showed that the following traffic was blocked: Sep 3 18:43:43 WAN 216.181.136.7:5065 xx.xx.xx.xx: 52042 UDP 216.181.136.7 is